Bill Maher Absolutely Crushes Charlie Rose For Comparing Islam To Christianity

[Synthaholic]

Not sure what Pew Poll Maher is referencing

^^^ Uncertainty in the wingnut mind quickly becomes...

Maher, as usual, is full of shit.

^^^ Certainty in the wingnut mind.

Poor Synth cannot find the Pew Poll to support the OP:

Haven't looked for it!

Your deflection is noted.

 

[Samson]

Not sure what Pew Poll Maher is referencing

^^^ Uncertainty in the wingnut mind quickly becomes...

Maher, as usual, is full of shit.

^^^ Certainty in the wingnut mind.

Poor Synth cannot find the Pew Poll to support the OP:

Haven't looked for it!.

Of course you haven't.....



Bill Maher said it was true, so you naturally believe it.

Pitiful, but amusingly naïve: What a child-like little mind you have.

 

[Jroc]

Christianity had its periods of murder and genocide to help it get to where it is now.

And yet, Christians mock Islam for doing the same.
​

it's the 21 century genius not the middle ages....You liberals are so pathetic

Islam is only 1500 years old.

How were Christians behaving 1500 years after Christ?

It's not 1500 years after Christ ..Get a grip genius

It's 1500 years after Mohammed.

How were Christians behaving 1500 years after Christ?

This is the 21 century, not the middle ages. Whats hard to understand about that?

 

[Jroc]

I wonder if those who believe that islam is all the same and everyone who is muslim is violent is consistent and believes that all christians are the same and they're all like fred phelps and his westboro baptist church?

My point being that not everyone is the same. Not all sects of christianity or islam are the same.

Yeah..... I'm only concerned with the ones who are sawing off heads, Raping women, and murdering babies

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One of the ways you can tell that the RWs here have never watched Maher is that they don't know he has no affection for the religion of Islam. None at all. They also don't know what he really says about god.

He was his usual funny, ascerbic self last night, live on his show followed by live stand up in DC.

Dealt with the idiot tee potty heckler quite well.

And the bit with the boy scout helping the little old lady across the street was a hoot.

I know all about Bill Maher.

Rose is an imbecile. Maher is a theological dunce. They're both illiberal statist bootlicks.

In the meantime, this nation was founded on the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought, the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition.

You're confusing the pilgrims with the founders of the United States of America.

The pilgrims did found and establish a christian theocratic colony of England. With the king and the christian church controlling the colonies.

That was in the 1600s. The next century the liberal decedents of those pilgrims didn't want to live in a theocratic monarchy. They declared independence from England and fought a war for their freedom.

When they won, they created a secular nation with church and state separate. They named that nation The United States of America.

I'm surprised you didn't learn that in school.

If that were true why did the founders think it was important to have a congressional CHRISTIAN chaplain? That was one of the first votes of the new government.

What does a chaplain have to do with the constitution or the business of America? So they have a chaplain to say a prayer. That doesn't mean that our nation was founded on christianity or we're a theocratic nation.

If the founders of America wanted a theocratic nation they wouldn't have written the first Amendment.

Nor would congress have unanimously passed the Treaty of Tripoli. The very first sentence of that agreement states very clearly that America isn't founded on christianity.

The people who you posted about fought with England against the founders of America. Those who wanted America to remain a theocratic monarchy of England were the torries or conservatives.

The founders had no interest in establish a theocracy. Many came to the new world to escape European theocracies. Thus we have the first amendment to the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Nowhere in the constitution will you find the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God". The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion".

In fact, many if not most of the founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. Yet, many Christians contend that US was founded as Christian nation.

@Flopper
If that were true why did they give their vote in support of a CHRISTIAN congressional chaplain?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Pew Study you've sited says:

Moreover, Muslims are not equally comfortable with all aspects of sharia: While most favor using religious law in family and property disputes, fewer support the application of severe punishments – such as whippings or cutting off hands – in criminal cases.​

Maher says, "most Muslim people in the world do condone violence." Then when he is challenged he references a mysterious Pew Poll in Egypt, but clearly, from Pew, if only 38% of lower income Egyptians are more supportive of violence in the name of Islam, then there is a obvious flaw in Maher's reasoning.

Yes, I saw that. I regard the imposition of Shariah law, or any other kind of sectarian assault, theocratic or secular, on the inalienable rights of humanity to be an existential threat to civilized society that invariable leads to atrocity. In other words, the essence of Maher's criticism of Islam and the majority of its adherents penchant for theocracy is right on the mark in spite of his exaggerations regarding discrete acts of violence. Nowhere in this thread will you find me recommending that aspect of his comments. I don't know where he got his numbers either. The above is my best guess.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it-- the United States Constitution.

If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

I just got through reading your string of posts, all of which evade the central truth that the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism on which this nation was founded was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought.

Of course, the governing social contract of the Republic of the United States of America is not bottomed on Christianity as such, for the central construct of the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought is free will and, consequently, as universally applied to civil government, to the collective body politic, the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought emphasis the prerogatives of the individual over the mundane concerns of the collective and, consequently, repudiates all forms of statism, including theocracy!

Christianity is a religion. The Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought (free will/freedom of conscience, the sanctity of human life, the prerogatives of human liberty and private property, the Golden Rule of divine justice and the subsequent moral responsibilities of humanity) is a political theory of natural law and nature's God. They're categorically two different things.

The point that keeps flying over the heads of those who are wont to divorce constitutional law from the natural law of the Republic's founding is that Deism is not the foundational system of thought for the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism on which this nation was founded. Judeo-Christianity is!

Free will/freedom of conscience, the sanctity of human life, the prerogatives of human liberty and private property, the Golden Rule of divine justice and the subsequent moral responsibilities of humanity: Deism is not the origin of any of these things either. Once again, Judeo-Christianity is!

What is Deism?

Answer: Deism is Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought stripped of its mystical aspects.

Like the political theory of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, the natural religion of Deism is derived from Judeo-Christianity.

Also, the majority of the Founders were Christians and did not share the Deist's irrational criticisms of Christianity's mystical claims.

Besides, no one here is asserting that America is a Christian nation in the sense that you guys keep yammering on about.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."

In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

Now, let's get down to specifics. Yes, of course, the Unitarian Adams rejected the Christian doctrine of original sin and, consequently, the doctrine of propitiation. So? He didn't repudiate Christian morality or its sociopolitical ramifications of natural law and nature's God. That's what he's talking about when he writes: "the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature." Again, Judeo-Christianity repudiates all forms of statism. The Christian Founders were of the same opinion insofar as the Republic's government was concerned.

Adams also wrote the following:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God (letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813).

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity (The Works of John Adams, diary entry for July 26, 1796).

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be (Works, diary entry for February 22, 1756)!

I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world (letter to Thomas Jefferson on December 25, 1813).​

 

[Flopper]

Islamic extremist are a very small segment of Islam, yet they command nearly a 100% of the news media attention. The only way they can achieve their goal of a worldwide Holy War is to convince non-Muslims that they speak for all Muslims.

I believe that when I see massive uprisings of the Mythical Moderate Muslims against the Extremists.

Some Christians seem to have the idea that all Muslims pray five times a day, fast during Ramadan, pay zakah, beat their wives and children, and seek to destroy all Christians which is complete nonsense. If you believe that kind of crap, you're falling for Islamic extremist propaganda. They can't succeed without non-Muslims helping them. There's nothing they love more than hate, threats and violence directed at Muslims.

And then some people are just naïve and apparently unaware of the wholesale slaughter of Christians in the Islamic world, particularly in the Middle East and Africa. Islam is evil, a bane of civilization.

I'm sure Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other such groups appreciate your comments. Nothing like a little help form the enemy.

You're missing the point. Islam denies the reality of free will and, consequently, denies the reality of inalienable rights. That's evil. That's incompatible with civilized society. It's Islam that propagates hate and directs oppression and violence against the truth, against liberty, against non-Muslims. The only people falling for the big lie in the West are naïve, ill-informed leftists, who, not surprisingly, are statists too.

Islam certainly doesn't deny free will. In fact, Islam is all about free will just as Christianity is. Muslims look at inalienable rights quite different than Western nations. The tenants of Islam include a basic set of rules designed to protect individual rights and freedoms, however the rights of individuals are not permitted to infringe upon the rights of communities.

Islam is changing rapidly. It is becoming more secular and westernized particularly among the young. Just in last 20 years huge changes have occurred in Iran once viewed as being the most fundamentalist Muslim nation. In Iran minority religions are allowed and accepted by the government to some extent. Also, in Iran women enjoy some of the highest levels of freedom in the Arab world. Attitudes of Muslims in the US and most European countries are far different than in the Arab world. These changes are terrifying to the fundamentals. To them, the West is corrupting their society, destroying their youth. They have reacted by bringing terror to the West in hopes of igniting a Holly War. Whether they are successful depends on how western nations react.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

"Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity"?! That's hogwash! Madison was one of the Founders who was a Christian, not a Deist.

What has been on trail?

Answer: "the legal establishment of Christianity".

Guess what? Biblical Christianity repudiates "the legal establishment of Christianity".

He's not talking about Christianity proper. He's talking about theocracy, the subversion of Christianity and its teachings in the hands of monarchs and the demagogues of state religion. That's what the Christian Protestants of the Reformation rebelled against. The sociopolitical ramifications of the Golden Rule utterly reject the divine rule of kings and theocracy.

He also wrote this:

I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way (The Papers of James Madison, letter to William Bradford on September 25, 1773).​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In an essay on "Toleration," Franklin wrote:

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."

Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:

"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)

Franklin was a Deist, but his observations regarding the foibles of human nature do not negate his admiration for Jesus of Nazareth, sans His mystical teachings, or his admiration for the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethics. As for Franklin's famous dispute with the disciples of the First Century, i.e., "the primitive Christians", I have a news flash for Franklin: the disciples did not persecute heretics; they expelled them from the fellowship of Christ. It's called free-association. LOL! For those who are not familiar with the Deist's dispute with the Apostles, a little background. . . . Supposedly, the Apostles who walked with Jesus and knew Him personally imposed divinity on Jesus, and the heretical Gnostics of the First Century who didn't walk with Jesus or know Him personally had it right.

Hmm.

Once again your post has nothing to do with the historical fact that the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism on which this nation was founded was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethics.

Franklin also wrote the following:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see (Works of Benjamin Franklin, March 9, 1790).​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Thomas Paine

This freethinker and author of several books, influenced more early Americans than any other writer. Although he held Deist beliefs, he wrote in his famous The Age of Reason:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "

Ah! Paine! The lover of the Jacobins. So what? Even Jefferson who encourage Paine to publish The Age of Reason was appalled by the extent of Paine's attack on Christianity, though Paine did appreciate "the natural morality" of Jesus of Nazareth in a backhanded sort of way. Jefferson didn't see that coming. Paine drew the ire of several Founders, Christians and Deists alike, including Adams and Franklin.

More on that here: Prufrock s Lair Objectivism The Uninspired Religion of Reason

Prufrock s Lair The New Math of American History and the Unobscured Truth

Back to reality: once again your post has nothing to do with the historical fact that the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism on which this nation was founded was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethics.

 

[Flopper]

Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."

In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

Now, let's get down to specifics. Yes, of course, the Unitarian Adams rejected the Christian doctrine of original sin and, consequently, the doctrine of propitiation. So? He didn't repudiate Christian morality or its sociopolitical ramifications of natural law and nature's God. That's what he's talking about when he writes: "the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature." Again, Judeo-Christianity repudiates all forms of statism. The Christian Founders were of the same opinion insofar as the Republic's government was concerned.

Adams also wrote the following:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God (letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813).

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity (The Works of John Adams, diary entry for July 26, 1796).

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be (Works, diary entry for February 22, 1756)!

I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world (letter to Thomas Jefferson on December 25, 1813).​

Because some of the founders were Christians does not mean this country was founded as a Christian nation. The first amendment should make that pretty clear. There were Christian founders but there were also deist, and there were Christians in name only who were better described as secularist. The Magna Carta, not the Bible had the most influence on Constitution. However, the constitution is drawn from many sources, possible even the Koran. The objectives and their underlying principles of the Preamble are cross-referenced to the Koran.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I believe that when I see massive uprisings of the Mythical Moderate Muslims against the Extremists.

Some Christians seem to have the idea that all Muslims pray five times a day, fast during Ramadan, pay zakah, beat their wives and children, and seek to destroy all Christians which is complete nonsense. If you believe that kind of crap, you're falling for Islamic extremist propaganda. They can't succeed without non-Muslims helping them. There's nothing they love more than hate, threats and violence directed at Muslims.

And then some people are just naïve and apparently unaware of the wholesale slaughter of Christians in the Islamic world, particularly in the Middle East and Africa. Islam is evil, a bane of civilization.

I'm sure Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other such groups appreciate your comments. Nothing like a little help form the enemy.

You're missing the point. Islam denies the reality of free will and, consequently, denies the reality of inalienable rights. That's evil. That's incompatible with civilized society. It's Islam that propagates hate and directs oppression and violence against the truth, against liberty, against non-Muslims. The only people falling for the big lie in the West are naïve, ill-informed leftists, who, not surprisingly, are statists too.

Islam certainly doesn't deny free will. In fact, Islam is all about free will just as Christianity is. Muslims look at inalienable rights quite different than Western nations. The tenants of Islam include a basic set of rules designed to protect individual rights and freedoms, however the rights of individuals are not permitted to infringe upon the rights of communities.

Islam is changing rapidly. It is becoming more secular and westernized particularly among the young. Just in last 20 years huge changes have occurred in Iran once viewed as being the most fundamentalist Muslim nation. In Iran minority religions are allowed and accepted by the government to some extent. Also, in Iran women enjoy some of the highest levels of freedom in the Arab world. Attitudes of Muslims in the US and most European countries are far different than in the Arab world. These changes are terrifying to the fundamentals. To them, the West is corrupting their society, destroying their youth. They have reacted by bringing terror to the West in hopes of igniting a Holly War. Whether they are successful depends on how western nations react.

I'm not talking metaphysical free will. I'm talking about the deterministic nature of Islam's ethics and politics, its penchant for theocracy. The Koran, in and of itself, is not a tolerant doctrine. Islam, in and of itself, is not changing. The attitudes of Muslims are changing in some places. The Muslim Persians of Iran, like the Muslim Kurds, have always been infinitely more reasonable than the Arab and African Muslims of the world. That's why Obama's failure to get behind the recent uprising of Iranian youth against the current regime of Iran is so deplorable. The proper response to the animals of Holy War is to make 'em dead.

 

[SAYIT]

It's better to go to the link and watch the short video.

Bill is correct, as always.

BTW - that link, and that headline is from....FOXNATION.com!

Maher is completely wrong.

I like Bill Maher, but I don't agree with him on this issue. I don't think it's reasonable to lump over a billion people into one group.

Crazy Evangelicals certainly don't represent all Christian's.

Lame apologist foisting lame moral equivalency.

 

[SAYIT]

Christianity had its periods of murder and genocide to help it get to where it is now.

And yet, Christians mock Islam for doing the same.
​

it's the 21 century genius not the middle ages....You liberals are so pathetic

Islam is only 1500 years old.

How were Christians behaving 1500 years after Christ?

Another lame lib apologist foisting lame moral equivalency.

 

[boedicca]

I must say, @M.D. Rawlings is doing an awesome job in this thread!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."

In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

Now, let's get down to specifics. Yes, of course, the Unitarian Adams rejected the Christian doctrine of original sin and, consequently, the doctrine of propitiation. So? He didn't repudiate Christian morality or its sociopolitical ramifications of natural law and nature's God. That's what he's talking about when he writes: "the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature." Again, Judeo-Christianity repudiates all forms of statism. The Christian Founders were of the same opinion insofar as the Republic's government was concerned.

Adams also wrote the following:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God (letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813).

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity (The Works of John Adams, diary entry for July 26, 1796).

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be (Works, diary entry for February 22, 1756)!

I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world (letter to Thomas Jefferson on December 25, 1813).​

Because some of the founders were Christians does not mean this country was founded as a Christian nation. The first amendment should make that pretty clear. There were Christian founders but there were also deist, and there were Christians in name only who were better described as secularist. The Magna Carta, not the Bible had the most influence on Constitution. However, the constitution is drawn from many sources, possible even the Koran. The objectives and their underlying principles of the Preamble are cross-referenced to the Koran.

The Anglo-American traditional of classical liberalism on which this nation was founded was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought. Fact! That is not the same thing as saying that America "was founded as a Christian nation." Nobody is claiming that! On the contrary, the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought repudiates such a thing. Christianity proper as religion is not the same thing as the political theory of the natural law of the Anglo-American traditional of classical liberalism. What's wrong with you people? You need to go back to the beginning of my posts on this point and read through, from beginning to end, 'til you understand the matter. I'm the authority here, not you. There's nothing you can teach me about the history of ideas and events touching on the origins or the development of classical liberalism, or natural and constitutional law.

 

[Carla_Danger]

It's better to go to the link and watch the short video.

Bill is correct, as always.

BTW - that link, and that headline is from....FOXNATION.com!

Maher is completely wrong.

I like Bill Maher, but I don't agree with him on this issue. I don't think it's reasonable to lump over a billion people into one group.

Crazy Evangelicals certainly don't represent all Christian's.

Lame apologist foisting lame moral equivalency.

No one is an apologist for terrorism, not on this thread. I'm just not willing to lump them together with peaceful Muslims, any more than I'm willing to lump sane Christians with abortion Dr. murderers.

 

[Esmeralda]

People who like to hate, who need someone to hate, find an easy target in Islam. They can stereotype the entire religion on the actions of a tiny minority. They can twist the facts and realities to suit their hatred. They can feel superior to someone else, despite the fact they are not superior. And so on.